Helge said:
This, frankly, is the problem. You don't explain. You don't list or link sources. You don't inform. You just write a few words and think that that is that. How, in your opinion, has Æthelwulf missed the point? Explain, talk, discuss, that's what a forum is for! If it's something covered in your thread then quote it and link it.
There isn't anything wrong with Æthelwulf's suggestion or line of thought. We have examples of weapons with blades made in one place and furniture placed on them elsewhere - such as the Wheeler's Type VI, Peterson Type Z found at Wandsworth. We also have finds of furniture found seperate from weapons, such as the rather lovely copper-alloy Saxon lower sword guard from Exeter. We know the people of the time were resourceful and recycled items or put them to new uses, especially with iron or metal items - iron was not cheap! It would not be beyond the skill of a smith to knock the rivets off of the furniture of one weapon with a broken/shattered/bent blade and put them on to a different blade, modifying them to fit if needs be. The important thing is we don't have enough finds to say this was never done and in the few we have there are examples of it having been done. When these sorts of sensible, practical and logical suggestions come up they should be matched to sources to see if there is a reasonable enough argument against it, and if there is an argument against it we have to prove it with primary sources, not the other way round.
[source of finds; Logan Thompson - Ancient Weapons in Britain]